AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2024 (Impugned Order) passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Office of the Competent Authority and Administrator, Kolkata, under Section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPTA). The Impugned Order has not allowed Reference dated 12.06.2023 and has not confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 01.06.2023 (PAO) u/s 24 (4) (b) (i). Therefore, the impugned property at Floor No. 5, Ward No. 23, Premises No. 5, Joginder Kaviraj Row, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, P.S. - Posta, Kolkata - 700007 has been held as not a Benami Property within the meaning of Section 2 (8) of PBPTA. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Department submitted that the Respondent company M/s ANKU NIVESH NIRYAT PRIVATE LIMITED (herei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpanies, it has also been found that the Companies namely M/s Turmoil Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rashmi Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., which acted as sources of payment to ANNL are having unregistered PAN and the rest of the Companies were clearly not having any business and have been used as intermediaries for transfer of funds. Ld. Counsel submitted that to determine the financial creditworthiness of the Respondent Company ANNL a financial analysis of the Company was done which revealed that it has no real creditworthiness. Some of the major pointers towards determining the genuineness of a Company such as total revenue, sales, income, net profits, profit before taxes were either NIL or negligible or shown to be in loss. The funds thus received b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Respondent BD further stated that the Respondent BO(s) are the shareholders of the Company. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the Judgment dated 23.08.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr. vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [1 (2023) 3 SCC 315] to hold that the transactions which occurred for flow of funds to ANNL before 01.11.2016 could not be brought under the purview of the Amended Act. Ld. Counsel stated that out of 6 such transactions, 5 of these were ruled out from being taken into reckoning as Benami in the Impugned Order. This accounted for 90% of the payment which had been made by ANNL towards the payment for the impugned property. It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchase of the property was a bona fide commercial transaction funded entirely through the Respondent Company's own disclosed sources, reflected in its audited balance sheets. The Respondent emphasized that its accounts are duly audited, returns filed regularly under the Income Tax Act, and statutory filings made under the Companies Act. It has also been submitted that the Appellant's characterization of the Company as a "shell entity" or "paper company" is baseless and made without any independent verification. The Respondent further stated that all payments were made through banking channels, and no fund was contributed by the Directors personally. The Respondent also pointed out that the income generated from the property is being shown i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Supreme Court in the Order dated 18.10.2024 (supra) has recalled its earlier Judgment dated 23.08.2022 and has granted liberty to the aggrieved party to seek a review where a matter has been disposed of relying upon the Judgment dated 23.08.2022. We quote the following paragraph from the Impugned Order dated 27.06.2024: "Further, as regards the sources of such investments it is clearly seen that the capital formation had taken place by the sale of pre-existing shares held/recorded in the books of accounts of 'ANNL'. Even if we accept that such sale of pre- existing shares were actually shares of fictitious companies as has been elaborately discussed by the Initiating Officer, the said transactions cannot be brought under....